2024 Supreme(SC) 499

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. Sundresh, S. V. N. Bhatti, JJ.
Sunita Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3924 OF 2023 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 3926-3927 OF 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 3925 OF 2023
Decided On : 17-05-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Video Conferencing – Act of securing presence of accused through video conferencing at the time of judicial remand for first time or police remand, is not a matter of course and it is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
(2) Release on probation of good conduct – If an offence is considered as an act against society, resultant action cannot be retributive alone as equal importance is required to be given to reformative part – Any decision on sentence has to indicate reasons for exercise of judicial discretion by Judge.
(3) Retrial – It is incumbent on appellate court directing retrial to provide a reasoned order on nature of miscarriage of justice.
(4) Discharge of accused – Before stage of framing of charges, Judge is expected to discharge accused if he is of considered view that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against accused.

Headnote:

(A) Rule for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 – Rules 6, 8 and 11 – Video Conferencing – Appearance, remand and examination of accused – Act of securing presence of accused through video conferencing at the time of judicial remand for first time or police remand, is not a matter of course and it is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing – Similar is the case qua recording of statement of an accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which case, it is obligatory on part of Court to make sure that accused is free from any form of coercion, threat or undue influence – It is only appropriate that accused has to be produced before Court, rather than marking his appearance through video conferencing, latter being an exception – While applying its mind, Court has to rule out possibility of any misuse. (Paras 4 and 5)

(B) Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – Intent and Purpose – Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 has been introduced in interest of administration of justice, while enforcing a criminal law – It is meant to take care of a situation where witnesses are made to depose before Court by completely abandoning case of prosecution, either by fear or favour – Scheme provides for a competent authority which is Standing Committee headed by a District and Sessions Judge with head of Police in District as a Member and head of Prosecution as its Member Secretary – A witness is at liberty to seek protection before competent authority – Head of police is expected to place before competent authority a “Threat Analysis Report” – Scheme lays down in detail action proposed to be taken once such application is filed. (Para 6)

(C) Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 21 – Fair trial – Concept of fair trial is not a vague idea, but a decisive one – Fair trial is heart and soul of criminal jurisprudence – Principle of democracy lies in a fair trial – It is not only a statutory right but also a human right which would be violated when safeguards provided under Statute are not followed – Absence of a fair trial would seriously impair and violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 – Unless a statute indicates otherwise, a criminal trial would commence with presumption of innocence – This principle is of utmost importance as Court embarks upon a trial in its quest for truth – Fair trial would include due compliance of procedure with adequate opportunities for all stakeholders – Such procedural safeguards and compliance are to be kept in mind by Court, as any deviation might either impact prosecution or defence in a given case – In an adversarial system of criminal law which is being followed in India, when an accused is prosecuted on behalf of State, interest of a victim cannot be ignored – An offence is presumed to be against societal values and any crime would constitute a deviant act by accused – Every trial is a march towards truth – It is primary duty of Court to search for truth using procedural law as its tool – Trial should be a real one and not a mere pretence. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 207, 208, 209 and 238 – Supply of documents to accused – Obligation so imposed is not only on supply of relevant documents, but such compliance should be at appropriate stage so that it does not brook any delay – Idea is to enable accused to face trial by thoroughly understanding case stated against him – However, mere non-supply of a part of documents would not lead to trial being vitiated, unless accused substantiates before Court that it has caused prejudice to him – It is ultimately for Court to come to appropriate conclusion by an adequate assessment of facts placed before it – Right of accused would arise in getting documents relied upon by prosecution, after taking cognizance and before framing of charges – Between taking cognizance and framing of charges, accused should have sufficient window to go through documents supplied to him as he is entitled to be heard at a later stage. (Paras 16 and 17)

(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 – Constitution of India – Article 22 – Discharge of accused – Before stage of framing of charges, Judge is expected to discharge accused if he is of considered view that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against accused – This being a judicial exercise, his discretion must be supported by adequate reasons – In discharge of his powers, he has to consider records and documents submitted by prosecution vis-à-vis arguments adduced by both sides – Words “after hearing submissions of accused” would imply an effective and meaningful hearing – It is not a mere procedural compliance – Judge has to satisfy himself that accused had reasonable time to ponder over and prepare his arguments before seeking discharge – At this stage, accused gets a substantive right as there is a window of opportunity for him to get discharged, instead of facing a prolonged trial – Such opportunity can only be exercised by not only supplying documents needed, but also giving adequate and sufficient time to defence to place its case – Granting time for that purpose is sole discretion of Court – It cannot be a full-fledged pretrial – Adequacy and sufficiency are relevant factors to be seen – Test is one of degree of probability – It is duty of court to ensure that accused is given sufficient opportunities to consult his Lawyer. (Paras 18, 19, 20 and 21)

(F) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 230 and 231 – Prosecution evidence – These two provisions are to be read in consonance with each other – At this stage, Court is concerned only with prosecution’s evidence – To ensure fair play, as a normal practice, Court has to fix a date for examination of witnesses – Idea is to complete examination-in-chief and cross examination, both at the same time – While fixing date, Court is expected to take into consideration relative convenience of parties, though discretion lies with it – Completion of such examination is a matter of rule as any deferment can at best be an exception, to discretion of Court – Use of such a discretion, being judicial in nature, has to be on a case-to-case basis – Balance has to be struck between competing interests. (Para 22)

(G) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 386(a) – Retrial – Appellate Court has got ample power to direct re-trial – However, such a power is to be exercised in exceptional cases – Irregularities found must be so material that a re-trial is the only option – Failure to follow mandate of law must cause serious prejudice vitiating entire trial which cannot be cured otherwise, except by way of a retrial – Once such re-trial is ordered, effect is that all proceedings recorded by court would get obliterated leading to a fresh trial which is inclusive of examination of witnesses – It is incumbent on appellate court directing a retrial to provide a reasoned order on nature of miscarriage of justice caused with reference to evidence and investigatory process. (Para 27)

(H) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 386(a) – Retrial – Appellate Court has got ample power to direct re-trial – However, such a power is to be exercised in exceptional cases – Irregularities found must be so material that a re-trial is the only option – Failure to follow mandate of law must cause serious prejudice vitiating entire trial which cannot be cured otherwise, except by way of a retrial – Once such re-trial is ordered, effect is that all proceedings recorded by court would get obliterated leading to a fresh trial which is inclusive of examination of witnesses – It is incumbent on appellate court directing retrial to provide a reasoned order on nature of miscarriage of justice caused with reference to evidence and investigatory process. (Para 27)

(I) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Sections 3, 4 and 6 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 360 – Release on probation of good conduct – If an offence is considered as an act against society, resultant action cannot be retributive alone as equal importance is required to be given to reformative part – Hearing accused on sentence is a valuable right conferred on accused – Trial court is duty bound to comply with mandate of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Act, 1958 before embarking into question of sentence – In a country like ours, sentencing accused persons pursuant to conviction, on a uniform pattern, would also be prejudicial – When it comes to sentencing, there are various factors such as age, sex, education, home life, social background, emotional and mental conditions, caste, religion and community that constitute aggravating and mitigating circumstances – There is a distinction between knowledge and character – More often than not, a convict does not have control over formation of his character – This leads to certain groups of people inheriting crime – A decision of a Judge in sentencing, would vary from person to person – This will also vary from stage to stage – It is controlled by mind – Environment and upbringing of a Judge would become ultimate arbiter in deciding sentence – Concept of intuitive sentencing is against rule of law – Courts do take into consideration mitigating and aggravating circumstances – Any decision on sentence has to indicate reasons for exercise of judicial discretion by Judge. (Paras 28 to 36 and 42)

Facts of the case:

Criminal Appeal No.3924 of 2023 has been filed by informant, against order of remittal passed by Division Bench of Patna High Court directing Trial Court to conduct a de novo trial, while making certain observations against Special Judge, disapproving his approach in conduct of trial. Criminal Appeal Nos.3926-3927 of 2023 have been filed by Special Judge who conducted trial and thereafter delivered judgment. Criminal Appeal No.3925 of 2023 has been filed by the very same Judge, aggrieved over remarks once again made by High Court in an order of remittal, requesting Chief Justice of Patna High Court to consider whether Judicial Officer should be assigned function of holding sessions trial which have far reaching consequences, while sending him for fresh training to State Judicial Academy.

Findings of Court:

Registry shall forward a copy of this Judgment to Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.

Result : Appeals dismissed with directions.